I read the messages back in May on Jerry Ponder. I did write an article for the St. Louis in the Civil War website and Kirby Ross and others challenged my use of references to Colonel Timothy Reeves and Major James Wilson provided in Jerry Ponder's book. While not embroiled in the right or wrong of Ripley County, Missouri history, Kirby was very effective in pointing out the lack of references and defensible material used by Jerry Ponder. This creates assumptive history and, in the case of Jerry Ponder's manufacturing an "honorable" history for one of his relatives, falsifying the basis of truth. I take this very seriously for several reasons. First, passions on the horror and atrocity of war, especially as conducted in the Trans-Mississippi west in the Civil War, run high. Secondly purposefully misrepresented history creates the wrong inferences of how our ancestors lived and died and, subsequently, made us what we are today.



To a lesser extent, Oates book on the Confederate Cavalry West of the River creates the same false history. We can't change what Jerry Ponder wrote except to counter it with more accurate history. Kirby's advice and persuasion took the form of documentation and verifiable and traceable manuscripts. We need to keep up the good work and writing.



Thanks,

Howard Mann

Howard: It what respects do you believe that Oates has been misleading in his Confederate Cavalry West of the River?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I read the messages back in May on Jerry Ponder. I did write an article for the St. Louis in the Civil War website and Kirby Ross and others challenged my use of references to Colonel Timothy Reeves and Major James Wilson provided in Jerry Ponder's book. While not embroiled in the right or wrong of Ripley County, Missouri history, Kirby was very effective in pointing out the lack of references and defensible material used by Jerry Ponder. This creates assumptive history and, in the case of Jerry Ponder's manufacturing an "honorable" history for one of his relatives, falsifying the basis of truth. I take this very seriously for several reasons. First, passions on the horror and atrocity of war, especially as conducted in the Trans-Mississippi west in the Civil War, run high. Secondly purposefully misrepresented history creates the wrong inferences of how our ancestors lived and died and, subsequently, made us what we are today.



To a lesser extent, Oates book on the Confederate Cavalry West of the River creates the same false history. We can't change what Jerry Ponder wrote except to counter it with more accurate history. Kirby's advice and persuasion took the form of documentation and verifiable and traceable manuscripts. We need to keep up the good work and writing.



Thanks,

Howard Mann

Jim.... Fair question. I will go back over my notes and references on Oates. Since I made the statement I need to make sure my response is accurate.



What I can say with assurety is that Oates did pioneer bringing attention and scholarship to the Civil War in the Trans-Mississippi West at a time when almost nothing was written about it. I can also say (again my opinion only) that Jay Monehegan's book on the Civil War in the West over-generalizes the actions west of the Mississippi and dramatizes history rather than focus's on the people, strategy and makes more assumptions than what would appeal to me.



I will work on a response.



Thanks

Howard Mann

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Howard: It what respects do you believe that Oates has been misleading in his Confederate Cavalry West of the River?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I read the messages back in May on Jerry Ponder. I did write an article for the St. Louis in the Civil War website and Kirby Ross and others challenged my use of references to Colonel Timothy Reeves and Major James Wilson provided in Jerry Ponder's book. While not embroiled in the right or wrong of Ripley County, Missouri history, Kirby was very effective in pointing out the lack of references and defensible material used by Jerry Ponder. This creates assumptive history and, in the case of Jerry Ponder's manufacturing an "honorable" history for one of his relatives, falsifying the basis of truth. I take this very seriously for several reasons. First, passions on the horror and atrocity of war, especially as conducted in the Trans-Mississippi west in the Civil War, run high. Secondly purposefully misrepresented history creates the wrong inferences of how our ancestors lived and died and, subsequently, made us what we are today.



To a lesser extent, Oates book on the Confederate Cavalry West of the River creates the same false history. We can't change what Jerry Ponder wrote except to counter it with more accurate history. Kirby's advice and persuasion took the form of documentation and verifiable and traceable manuscripts. We need to keep up the good work and writing.



Thanks,

Howard Mann

Howard: I certainly agree with you regarding the Monaghan book, although I must admit that it is the one that initiated by interest in the Trans-Mississippi theater. I am a Jeff Thompson admirer, and his biography of Thompson treats his subject like some kind of clown.



We may well agree on Oates as well.



Jim McGhee

I am still trying to track down the much more erudite response provided to me by a Civil War author I corresponded with once, who opened my eyes to the pitfalls of generalized Civil War history. Be that as it may, I still contend that Stephen Oates projects his own opinions about the Confederates being "good" guys and the Yankees being "bad" guys.



On pages 31 through 33, Oates refers to a "bloody uprising in Creek country" that threatened to engulf the area in a small civil war. This description is incorrect and does not provide any detail on the flight of men, women and children of Opothelayhola in the dead of winter towards Kansas. The "uprising" depiction of this story is more pro-southern than historically acurate.



On page 42, Oates describes Quantrill's recruiting efforts as a response to depredations by "James Montgomery, Doc Jennison and Jim Lane". This simplistic generalization is a far cry from the complexities that created Quantrill's raiders. While I would concur that history would support bloody deeds performed on both sides, Quantrill should not be described simply as other guerilla leaders were at the time. Quantrill's duplicity started much earlier culminating in the Morgan Walker farm massacre in late 1860. Most battle reports carry a similar pro-Confederate cast.



What Oates does really well was to provide hard to find details on the organization, the many multiple confusing changes made throughout the war, the arms, mounts, and a sense of how the common soldier of the south fared in the Trans-Mississippi West. He portrays the hardship and the superb horsemanship that constituted the most effective arm of Confederate troops in the far western theatre of the Civil War.



So, I do read Stephen Oates but I always keep in the back of my mind that I need to read balancing material in order to get a true picture of the Civil War west of the river.



The same may be said of Monaghan, Connelly, even Castel on the Northern side, either casting everyone as heroes or villians. What is probably true is that people reacted under the trying circumstances of the Civil War much as they would have reacted today, given 19th century morals and behaviors. Politicians acted like 19th century politicians, soldiers acted like 19th century soldiers, and civilians acted like 19th century civilians with the added burden of being in the midst of a civil war. Civilians, as having been pointed out elsewhere, were subjected to the privations of a scorched earth policy, were murdered by both sides if they were suspected of supporting the other side, were robbed by both sides, and abused, humiliated and imprisoned by both sides.



Hope this helps answer part of your question.



Thanks,

Howard Mann

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Howard: I certainly agree with you regarding the Monaghan book, although I must admit that it is the one that initiated by interest in the Trans-Mississippi theater. I am a Jeff Thompson admirer, and his biography of Thompson treats his subject like some kind of clown.



We may well agree on Oates as well.



Jim McGhee